ok, here are the REAL "facts"

dan said:

First off, if you do some reading you'll find that the evidence against

I suggest you make a movie. Call it Changing Losers, or something.

--
E. Dronkert

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:23:49 GMT, "dan" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

First off, if you do some reading you'll find that the evidence against
Floyd is anything but overwhelming. The fact that his A and B samples tested
the same simply means that the A sample wasn't independently tampered with
and the tests were excuted in a consistent manner, though that does not mean
that the test couldn't be flawed. This is the result one would expect of
such tests. If there had been a difference between the A and B samples, THAT
would have been unexpected.

Contrary to many reports from lazy news sources, Landis did NOT have a high
level of testosterone in his urine. What he had was a high
testosterone-epitestosterone ratio (a.k.a. T-E ratio). "Normal" ratios are
in the 1:1 - 3:1 range, though studies have found significant numbers of men
with natural T-E ratios in the 6:1 range and some as high as 13:1. The WADA
standard for doping is set at 6:1. The UCI used that limit up until this
year, when it dropped its acceptable ratio to 4:1 (I have no idea why).
Although Landis has been reported to have tested with a ratio of 11:1, there
has been no official confirmation of that yet AFAIK.

Testosterone doping is primarily used to build muscle and works over a long
period of time to do so. However, since cycling is not a sport that benefits
from large, bulky muscles, that type of testosterone use would be
counterproductive for a road cyclist (it might benefit a track sprinter).

There is another use for testoterone; it can be used to enhance short-term
recovery. A testosterone patch is place on the scrotum for up to 6 hours and
it will reduce recovery time, supposedly without boosting levels to the
point of exceeding the legal T/E ratio. As yet, there is no evidence that
Landis did this or even knew about the technique.

Urine tests are woefully innacurate, since they don't measure the level of
testosterone in the blood, they only measure how much was excreted by the
body. The UCI knows of the innacuracy, but insists on using urine tests
anyway, probably because they're cheaper than blood tests. To date, every
athlete that has challenged testosterone urine tests has won their case.
There are reports that there was synthetic testosterone in Landis' urine,
which would certainly be problematic for him. OTOH, his levels were legal
after the stages before and after the stage in question (17), which raises
serious questions about the testing. It seems unlikely that an athlete's T-E
ratio could go from legal levels to 11:1 and back to legal levels in 48
hours.

The lab used by the TDF has serious problems of its own. It has been
compromised by the French press (L'Equipe specifically) and information is
constantly leaked by an internal source. It was reviewed independently after
the most recent recent Lance Armstrong debacle and the report lambasted the
lab for inadequate/improper safeguards and procedures, essentially
discrediting it in the L.A. case. Why the TDF still uses the same lab is
anybody's guess, since one would think they'd want to use a lab that doesn't
have a history of problems.

Right now, there are far more questions than answers in this case.
Specifically:

- What is Floyd's natural T/E ratio?

- What was the actual T-E ratio in the tests?

- How much of a difference was there with the results after the previous and
subsequent stages. It makes a big difference if Floyd was 3.9:1 before and
after (just under the legal limit) and 4.1:1 in the tests (just over the
legal limit) vs. being 1:1 before/after and 11:1 in the tests.

- How much could his (legal) medication and self-medication (drinking after
stage 16) have influenced the test results?

- Were the A and B test results consistent (they were both high, but we
don't know if they were the same).

...and for the conspiracy theorists...

- Why does the UCI/TDF rely on urine tests when they KNOW they're
innacurate.

- Why did the UCI drop it's T-E ratio standard to 4:1 THIS year?

- Is it possible that the urine sample container given to Landis was
"spiked" with testosterone and is there any way to determine if that was the
case?

- Exactly how desperate are the French to have someone other than an
American win their beloved race?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when the actual test data
is revealed and tests are conducted by another lab (assuming they are).
Landis has already been convicted in the press, by his team and by the
organizers of the TDF, but this case is far from over.

I read through your entire essay and found no reference to
"exogenous."

Conspiracy or just bad reasoning?

Ewoud Dronkert said:

dan said:

First off, if you do some reading you'll find that the evidence against

I suggest you make a movie. Call it Changing Losers, or something.

Yes, your summary is appalling, stop wasting your time was that kind
of stuff and let the grow-ups do the talking.

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read through your entire essay and found no reference to
"exogenous."

What do you know about the method of testing and what errors it's prone to
have?

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Quoted message said:

I suggest you make a movie. Call it Changing Losers, or something.

Keith said:

Yes, your summary is appalling, stop wasting your time was that kind
of stuff and let the grow-ups do the talking.

Looser, you speld appaling wrong.

"dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

A testosterone patch is place on the scrotum for up to 6 hours and

Quoted message said:

it will reduce recovery time, supposedly without boosting levels to the
point of exceeding the legal T/E ratio. As yet, there is no evidence that
Landis did this or even knew about the technique.

I knew about this techiniue and I am a horrible racer, without any medical
support or many friends who travell in doping circles.

Quoted message said:

- Is it possible that the urine sample container given to Landis was
"spiked" with testosterone and is there any way to determine if that was
the
case?

I guess that anything is possible but the rider grabs a sample jar from a
bin that contains many jars. It is then sealed and labeled in front of the
rider.

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:54:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read through your entire essay and found no reference to
"exogenous."

What do you know about the method of testing and what errors it's prone to
have?

Dumbass:

Here is what OP said:

"Right now, there are far more questions than answers in this case.
Specifically:

- What is Floyd's natural T/E ratio?

- What was the actual T-E ratio in the tests?

- How much of a difference was there with the results after the
previous and
subsequent stages. It makes a big difference if Floyd was 3.9:1 before
and
after (just under the legal limit) and 4.1:1 in the tests (just over
the
legal limit) vs. being 1:1 before/after and 11:1 in the tests.

- How much could his (legal) medication and self-medication (drinking
after
stage 16) have influenced the test results?

- Were the A and B test results consistent (they were both high, but
we
don't know if they were the same)."

My point is that, even assuming that all of the above are determined
in a light favorable to Landis, a determination that the testosterone
in his system was exogenous trumps them all.

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:54:46 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>

Quoted message said:

"Doug Taylor" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read through your entire essay and found no reference to
"exogenous."

What do you know about the method of testing and what errors it's prone to
have?

Dumbass:

Here is what OP said:

"Right now, there are far more questions than answers in this case.
Specifically:

- What is Floyd's natural T/E ratio?

Are you aware that this changes dramatically from day to day in MOST men?

Quoted message said:

- What was the actual T-E ratio in the tests?

11:1.

Quoted message said:

- How much of a difference was there with the results after the
previous and subsequent stages. It makes a big difference if
Floyd was 3.9:1 before and after (just under the legal limit)
and 4.1:1 in the tests (just over the legal limit) vs. being 1:1
before/after and 11:1 in the tests.

There is very little information on this sort of thing in the medical
libraries. Why are you willing to use half-assed information to ruin
someone's life?

Quoted message said:

My point is that, even assuming that all of the above are determined
in a light favorable to Landis, a determination that the testosterone
in his system was exogenous trumps them all.

And as has been stated again and again - at BEST the finding of "exogenous"
is questionable. A finding from a single laboratory is highly untrustworthy.
The precise methods used for separations can be broad enough that components
from surrounding peaks can be included in the separation. What if that
adjacent peak is from a NORMALLY plant produced substance? Mass Spec doesn't
know what component the molecules come from, only what the atoms are.

Gosh Tom, I wish I was as smart as you. How do you know all this
stuff????

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dan said:

Quoted message said:

Contrary to many reports from lazy news sources, Landis did NOT have a
high
level of testosterone in his urine.

Levels of this hormone vary widely from individual to individual.
Because of this, they do not test for testosterone "levels". They test
for the T:E ratio (this generally does NOT vary greatly from individual
to individual). The amount of T -vs- the amount of E.

But as the man said, if the testosterone levels DID remain more or less
constant and the epitestosterone levels were varying (AS THEY ARE KNOWN TO
DO FOR UNKNOWN REASONS) then wouldn't it be of interest?

Quoted message said:

And unfortunately, you are not thinking hard enough. Steroid abusers
use quite a bit of the "roids" while in training (and over time). They
use enough of it to affect the body's natural production of both E and
T.

Sounds good except people who have not used steroids also have wildly
varying t:e ratios for unknown reasons.

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

And unfortunately, you are not thinking hard enough. Steroid abusers
use quite a bit of the "roids" while in training (and over time). They
use enough of it to affect the body's natural production of both E and
T.

Sounds good except people who have not used steroids also have wildly
varying t:e ratios for unknown reasons.

Tom,

Wildly varying, as in 2:1 or 4:1, or wildly varying as in 11:1? On a
given day, if you were to pull 10,000 (non steroid abusing) people and
check their T/E ratios, how many do you think you'd get with an 11:1
ratio? MAYBE one? Is Mr Landis another of those 1-in-10,000 guys?
Didn't we just go through that with Tyler Hamilton (and countless
others)?

I'm more than happy to give Mr. Landis the benefit of doubt, but when I
look at the number of busted cyclists claiming to have incredibly
unique situations, I find it increasingly difficult. Each rider that
asks for such consideration is subsequently ruining it for the next
guy. People here gave Tyler a lot of slack with his vanishing twin
[censored] (something he has failed to back up with his own independent, very
standard hospital test). You'll notice that a lot of people like
Landis way better than they liked Armstrong, yet when it came to his
getting popped, most quickly turned on him. Why? Too many outrageous
claims regarding positive results have happened in recent years.
People are sick of it. No more crying wolf.

On the surface, it seems that your standard for a finding of guilt lies
with "indisputable proof". I'm willing to accept "beyond reasonable
doubt". Sorry Tom, but I'm tired of your hippie San Francisco [censored]. I'm
glad we don't have a legal system managed by your standards.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Quoted message said:

And unfortunately, you are not thinking hard enough. Steroid abusers
use quite a bit of the "roids" while in training (and over time). They
use enough of it to affect the body's natural production of both E and
T.

Sounds good except people who have not used steroids also have wildly
varying t:e ratios for unknown reasons.

Wildly varying, as in 2:1 or 4:1, or wildly varying as in 11:1?

Actually they quoted 20:1 in one article. But it's difficult to quantify
that since you don't know what is NORMAL in that particular person. One
thing is certain though - the one percentile cutoff for false positives is
at 6:1. They can expect something like 5% false positives at 4:1 and yet
they aren't showing anything like that. Something is going on and they're
pretending that the lab is perfect.

Quoted message said:

On a
given day, if you were to pull 10,000 (non steroid abusing) people and
check their T/E ratios, how many do you think you'd get with an 11:1
ratio? MAYBE one? Is Mr Landis another of those 1-in-10,000 guys?
Didn't we just go through that with Tyler Hamilton (and countless
others)?

Since we don't understand what causes this ratio to shift we can't saw much
about it one way or another. Let me ask you again - if the testosterone
tested at 10, 12, 11, 12, 10 and the epitestosterone at 10, 12, 1, 13, 10
would you believe that Landis was taking exogenous testosterone?

Quoted message said:

On the surface, it seems that your standard for a finding of guilt lies
with "indisputable proof". I'm willing to accept "beyond reasonable
doubt". Sorry Tom, but I'm tired of your hippie San Francisco [censored]. I'm
glad we don't have a legal system managed by your standards.

Here's a clue - we DO have a legal system manged by "my" standard. I mention
it because in case you don't understand it, a person has to be guilty BEYOND
A SHADOW OF A DOUBT in the USA. It is in Europe where they believe that just
being persuasive is enough to find someone guilty.

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - we DO have a legal system manged by "my" standard. I mention
it because in case you don't understand it, a person has to be guilty BEYOND
A SHADOW OF A DOUBT in the USA. It is in Europe where they believe that just
being persuasive is enough to find someone guilty.

That's for criminal cases. This is just sport. It is expendable.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - we DO have a legal system manged by "my" standard. I mention
it because in case you don't understand it, a person has to be guilty BEYOND
A SHADOW OF A DOUBT in the USA. It is in Europe where they believe that just
being persuasive is enough to find someone guilty.

Actually Tom, you are incorrect. The law does not say "shadow of
doubt", but rather "beyond REASONABLE doubt"...That is, beyond what
people reasonably believe to be true. This is affirmed by our jury
system. Our legal system does not seek truth or "proof", but the
opinion of what people might reasonably expect. I think your standard
is not reasonable.

With your standard, we'd have no business testing anyone for any doping
whatsoever. We have plenty of "busted" cyclists who have come clean
after the fact. Actually, very few go down in flames and end up years
later saying they were injustly thrown out. I think that says a lot.

I respect your technical answers, and yes, I think you make some good
points on ratios. I remember a good quote: "It doesn't matter what
the answers are when you ask the wrong questions"...What exactly should
they be testing for in terms of ratio?...But that only speaks to the
probable cause element...the hightened ratio that then makes them go
into the results and determining exogenous versus endogenous
testosterone. I'm sure they based their "adverse finding" more on the
endogenous aspect, not the ratio aspect.

If the T:E ratio is everyone's beef, then it means we do not really
want to catch dopers. Our interest lies in defending the rights of
dopers. I'm all in favor of due process, but that can't be the only
process. Remember how OJ's Bronco was found parked "askew", which
prompted the cops to then hop his fence. That fence-hopping led to the
bloody glove. We all know he's guilty, but also, everyone pretty much
knows the cops had no business hopping his fence. This supported a
finding of not-guilty. So would you rather know that OJ is a grisly
killer, or would you sleep better at night by focusing on due process?

Raptor said:

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - we DO have a legal system manged by "my" standard. I mention
it because in case you don't understand it, a person has to be guilty BEYOND
A SHADOW OF A DOUBT in the USA. It is in Europe where they believe that just
being persuasive is enough to find someone guilty.

That's for criminal cases. This is just sport. It is expendable.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Correct. The standard for civil cases - and this is civil at this
point- is beyond a reasonable doubt. And reasonable is what a jury
deems reasonable.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:52:20 -0600, Raptor <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

Here's a clue - we DO have a legal system manged by "my" standard. I mention
it because in case you don't understand it, a person has to be guilty BEYOND
A SHADOW OF A DOUBT in the USA. It is in Europe where they believe that just
being persuasive is enough to find someone guilty.

That's for criminal cases. This is just sport. It is expendable.

However, if Landis could prove that there was a consperiacy to spike
his urine to test positive in order to deprive him of his rightful
prize, that would be a crime. At least it would be in the US.

gds said:

Correct. The standard for civil cases - and this is civil at this
point- is beyond a reasonable doubt. And reasonable is what a jury
deems reasonable.

And, in civil cases, the jury does not have to be unanimous.

If this was the US, Landis could file a civil suit against the Tour
organizers for his money. If they wanted to fight the suit they would
have to prove that their tests are accurate and that the proper
protocols were followed. Everything woud have to come out in court.
No more secrets. Court TV eat your heart out.

Could Floyd do that in France?

gds said:

Raptor said:

That's for criminal cases. This is just sport. It is expendable.

Correct. The standard for civil cases - and this is civil at this
point- is beyond a reasonable doubt. And reasonable is what a jury
deems reasonable.

Dear Dylan McDermott,

Gah. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the US standard
for criminal cases. The standard in civil cases is a
"preponderance of the evidence."

<http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1586>

If you guys are going to give legal opinions based on
reruns of Ally McBeal, at least try to keep the catchphrases
straight.

This is neither a civil nor criminal case yet, until somebody
files a lawsuit in a real court. The WADA process and
the Court for Arbitration in Sport are not a judicial branch
of government, but extra-judicial (pseudo-judicial?
para-judicial? orthotricycli-judicial? Whatever).

Ben
RBR Counsel for the Offense

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Actually they quoted 20:1 in one article. But it's difficult to quantify
that since you don't know what is NORMAL in that particular person. One
thing is certain though - the one percentile cutoff for false positives is
at 6:1. They can expect something like 5% false positives at 4:1 and yet
they aren't showing anything like that. Something is going on and they're
pretending that the lab is perfect.

That distribution of ratios only works for the population
from which it is drawn. The pelotons will show a much
different distribution.

--
Michael Press